Truth Magazine

By Lynn Trapp

In 1963 in two landmark cases the Supreme Court ruled against devotionals and prayer meetings in public schools which were organized, supported, or supervised by public officials. Since that time a majority of the “devout” (see article by Leo Rogol, Feb. 3, 1972 in Truth Magazine) persons in America have been using their energies to get “God back in the schools.” As a result of this, Representative Chalmers P. Wylie has sponsored House Joint Resolution 191 which says, “Nothing contained in this Constitution shall abridge the right of persons lawfully assembled, in any, public building which is supported in whole or in part through the expenditure of public funds, to participate in nondenominational prayer.”

On the face of it this Resolution seems entirely harmless. However, a close examination will reveal some very dangerous fallacies within it.

The first fallacy is that it is impossible to put something back in the schools which is already there. The federal government has never in any instance forbidden voluntary, personal prayer. All the courts ruled against were those which were sponsored by public officials. Such a position is perfectly in line with scripture and freedom. To require prayers of a “nondenominational” nature of people is a violation of the persons freedom and conscience, something which no man or group of men have the right to do.

The second fallacy is that this amendment does not solely concern itself with public schools. The amendment does, not mention public schools or schools of any kind. Rather, it mentions all public buildings throughout the nation. The eventual effect of the amendment is that it establishes a secularized (“nondenominational”), state-approved religion which is not only accepted, but required, in public buildings. Try to imagine a greater entanglement of state and church than the one just described.

Consider also the nature of the words “lawfully assembled.” Such a statement in an amendment of this nature is at the least redundant and certainly carries certain ominous overtones. How else would anyone assemble in order to worship? Has anyone ever seen or even heard of a group assembling in a manner which is usually considered unlawful (riots, looting, etc.) opening their assembly with a prayer and closing it with a devotional song service? Just think, the men who wrote this amendment are actually the men who make our laws. I think the American public needs to take more notice as to what is going on Capitol Hill.

Just what is a public building? HJR 191 defines it as any building “which is supported in whole or in part through the expenditure of public funds.” Are church buildings “public buildings” Why not? Churches are exempt from paying taxes and yet they receive the full gamut of public police and fire protection. Not only that, but there is a concerted effort -at the highest level of government to change the meaning of public to include parochial schools in order that they may become, by simple redefinition of terms, “public schools.” The OEO is currently proposing a tuition voucher proposal for all education. One of its fundamental objectives is the redefining of the term .,public school” to embrace all schools which are nondiscriminitory in enrollment and which make financial reports available. If a church school and a church school building can be labeled “public,” then why not the church building itself? The ultimate end is that the government will be telling us what we can and cannot pray in our own church buildings. We will eventually be living under Communism or Catholicism if this amendment is not completely destroyed.

The third fallacy is that the amendment will not stop at the kind of worship which may be offered in public places. It will affect much more than that. If worship of a state approved “non-denominational” type can be offered in public buildings, cannot religious teachings of a state-approved “nondenominational” type be carried on there? Gaston D. Gogdell, Director of Organization f or Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, asks an important question, “if the public schools are now to become houses of worship and agencies for teaching ii sort of newly established , nondenominational state religion, can tax support justly be withheld any longer from parochial schools?” Can it indeed?

Finally, the amendment really has nothing to do at all with true worship to God. The supporters of this amendment certainly are not concerned with such. If they are, why havent we heard any of them concern themselves with the question, “Will the King of the universe be pleased with the nondenominational prayer which will be offered up to him in the temples of secular religion which our schools and public buildings will become as a result of this proposed change in our constitution?”

This amendment came up for vote in the House on November8, 1971 and was defeated by only 28 votes. That does not mean that it is entirely dead. The supporting forces are already rallying again. Concerned Christians and Americans need to get busy writing letters to their Congressmen right now. Your freedom depends on it.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 27, pp. 10-11
May 11, 1972

By James P. Neddham

QUESTION:

What is the difference between a church’s receiving funds for evangelism from a trust or a foundation, and its receiving money for evangelism from another church as is practiced in the Herald of Truth? -Tenn.

ANSWER:

The difference is very basic: a foundation or trust fund is the carrying out of an individual’s wishes in reference to his personal money, while church funds are regulated by God’s law in reference to its use. Thus, the difference is between what an individual may do and what a church may do. A failure to distinguish between the church and the individual has caused much confusion and led to much error. It is obvious that some brethren are not yet settled on the question.

There are quite a few trusts or foundations around today. Most of them were set up during the lifetime of some wealthy brother who wanted to regulate the disposition of his fortune after his death. So, he employed some attorney to draw up a trust. The trust maker can regulate the trust as he pleases. He makes the rules by which his wealth shall be expended. He can form them any way he chooses. He might specify that his money shall go for the support of evangelism anywhere in the world, or he may limit it to a given area. He may allow the money to be paid to individual preachers, or he may specify that it must be paid to a church. But in either case, he is making provisions for the disposition of his own funds, the same right he had during his own life time. Now if we grant him said right during his life time, how can we deprive him of it because of his death?

For instance, I am acquainted with various kinds of trusts. I know of one from which funds can be given to any preacher the trustees judge is qualified under the trust agreement. I know others where the funds must be paid into the treasury of a local church. I know yet others from which loans may be made for the purchase or construction of church buildings. We would all agree that the men who set up these trusts could so use their money, if they were living. Now, what principle of scripture is violated when their money is used after their death just as they could use it, if they were living? I know of none, and do not believe anyone else knows of one.

In the Herald of Truth we have direct violation of scriptural law. God regulates how church funds are to be expended, and there is no authorization for expending them as practiced in the Herald of Truth. In the New Testament no funds were ever passed from one church to another for evangelism. Acts 11:28-30 records the passing of funds from one church to another, but it was for benevolence, and it occurred became the receiving churches had more needy members than they could care for. Thus when one church sent to another, the receiving church was always in physical need. This is not the case in the Herald of Truth. The Highland church in Abilene, Texas which sponsors the Herald of Truth is anything but a needy church! They receive and disburse funds from hundreds of churches in producing the Herald of Truth radio and television program. This is unscriptural, because there is no authority for passing of funds between and among churches for evangelism.

Thus, a church’s receiving funds from a foundation, which is but a means of carrying out a dead brother’s will, has no kinship with centralized control and oversight of church funds. He who thinks it does is not thinking logically or scripturally. Sometime when brethren are prejudiced, and cannot defend their position, they try to sway others by saying, “That is like the liberals.” Let us never be guilty of such unfairness.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 27, p. 9
May 11, 1972

By William C. Sexton

During the months of May and June each year many young men and women graduate from High School and College. Such is quite an accomplishment, and each person who passes this mark should be the recipient of just praise. However, I would like to raise two questions relative to graduating and comment on another.

1. What It Means: It usually means a great deal to the young person graduating. He or she has successfully reached a high land-mark in fife. It means many hours of study, discipline, and a denial of some things that one wanted; and it means that each has done some things that he did not really want to do at the moment. Yet most can look back with a sense of appreciation and self-esteem that they have reached this plateau in life.

Possibly however, it means even more psychologically to the parents of the young person than it does to the person graduating. I am a father that recently saw his daughter receive her high school diploma. It is a thrill; it brought a lump into my throat. Five years ago I saw my son receive his high school diploma, and two years ago he received his Associate Degree from Florida College. Soon I hope to see him receive his Bachelor Degree. I find a sense of satisfaction, as do most all parents who have such experiences.

At times the psychological strength for the parents comes as the result of seeing accomplished in their children what they were unable to accomplish themselves. They feel that their children are having a better chance than they had. This is natural and good. God fearing and children loving parents always desire that their children have things better than they had.

2. What Does the Future Hold: Various things are in store for the graduates. Shall they use the knowledge and experience to serve God and their fellowman? Hopefully, but not necessarily. There remains the need to set priorities, endure self-denial, and properly evaluate and apply discipline. There is no assurance that each will do this. Very likely many will not.

One can be lifted up in his own eyes, also, feeling that he knows more than he actually does; feeling that he has more power than he does indeed have, he may act foolishly; feeling that he does not need to depend on God as in fact he does, he may live undisciplined. Likewise, one can set his eyes on material wealth, now that he feels that it is within his reach. Or he can set his eyes on political power, now that it seems within reach, and make that his first love. Yet another danger: he may feel that fame is his goal, and forsake reality.

We pray that those who are graduating in 1972 are truly educated: recognizing that God, the Maker, deserves and demands mans first and best! He must be placed “first” (Matt. 6:33). He must be allowed to govern the persons life and activities and direct his energy and employ his talents.

It is my conviction that only those who recognize the power of God and submit willingly and zealously shall ultimately be successful. Be thankful for all that you have accomplished, graduates, and be mindful that it is with Gods help that you succeeded. Remember, too, parents, to constantly pray for and exhort regarding their spirituality as you have their materiality. May all remember that with Gods help we can be victoriously triumphant on, that day of days; but without His assistance, each of us is sure to fail in the end.

3. Disappointments Relative to Graduating: At times there are serious disappointments — both to the parents and to the graduating young person. Both may have labored with somewhat of a misconception. Parents who have missed an education may feel that if their children can have a high school diploma, they can face the world with a valuable product that will assure them a fruitful harvest. They may have overlooked the changes that have taken place in the world over the last generation, relative to education. What may have been a great potential a generation ago, may be necessary to barely survive today.

I have seen some disappointed parents: a few years ago in Kansas City, I saw a girt come to work fresh out of high school. Her parents were very proud of her, having labored under the misconception that with this high school diploma she would be assured a place in the business world. She came ill-prepared for the work that she was required to do, and she was terminated after a week. She expressed her sorrow to me — mostly because she felt that she was “letting her parents down.”

At times the disappointment comes to the graduate too. He or she has been laboring under the delusion that an education is the answer to all the problems of finding a job! May I never sell short the true value of an education; but may you never labor under the delusion that such is everything either. It isnt!

Yet there is another factor relative to education that concerns me more. As I have said, it is good for one to have successfully completed the achievement — to get a diploma, be it high school or college. However, such is just one plateau in life. There are many mountains to climb. If education has prepared one to be a successful participant in lifes game, good. Yet, there is no assurance that such is the case much of todays education does not equip one to participate successfully in life. It appears to me, that some may even hinder one in such an endeavor. My point: understand that there are many types of education; some of what goes under the heading of “education,” would be more accurately labeled “Propaganda.” Beware! Know what you are graduating with, and from, also to! Remember your Creator, (Ecc. 12: 1). Be educated in His will and your duty (Ecc. 12:13-14).

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 27, pp. 7-8
May 11, 1972

By Donald Willis

A young New York Life Insurance salesman, a member of the Methodist Church, recently responded in a home study, “I can see that the Lord ordained immersion, but how does one know that sprinkling is not acceptable?”

After due consideration, I recalled a statement often written into insurance policies, “This Company is not bound by the statements of the salesman, only by the inclusions within the policy itself.” I responded to the young mans question in the same manner. “God is not bound by every statement made by preachers. God has given us the inspired word. God will keep every promise made within the Bible. He is not bound by my statements, nor those of any other preacher.”

The point was well taken!

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 26, p. 13
May 4, 1972